What doesn't Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 offer?

I know this is a close competitor to Canon 24-70mm. The image quality is comparable. Could any user tell me what the Sigma doesn't offer comparing with Canon's? Full time manual focusing, weatherproof build, fully encompassed hood, weight, price...?

Are there any reports describing their comparison in the degree of distortion and dark corners?

Is it clumsy to convert between AF and MF?

The only downside I have noticed so far with mine is the loud AF. Well, not really loud, but now that I finally got my 70-200 with HSM I notice the 24-70 more. Definitely not a sale-blower.....I still love my lense. The Canon L was definitely out of my range and the Sigma so far has met all my needs and from what I've seen, the image quality is VERY comparabl. The real test will be in the spring when the tracks open up again.

I have the Sigma 24-60mm EX which is much like the 24-70 Sigma. Also have a 24-105mm Canon L and a 17-40mm Canon F/4 L. I've noticed only a slight difference in color tone on the monitor but prints I really can't see any difference. The Sigma Lens exposure seems slightly darker (Less than 1/3) with Manual settings between (F4-5.6) the L and EX lenses but easily fixed in RAW or Bracketing.

On the longer reach I have the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX and have done side by side comparisons with a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L and can't see any difference on the monitor or prints.

In all cases images were tack sharp with professional resolution @ 11x14 print.

I will agree with Wrench. The 24-70 is louder than I expected, but I'm not trying to sneak up on people or animals with a 24-70, so I'm not worried about it. That's the only thing that goes on my "negative" side for the Sig, however I don't even really consider it a negative. Price as you know is 1/3 the Canon price, and the only other difference I know of is that the Canon L comes weatherproofed, but again, I didn't need that, so I went with the Sig, and I'm loving every minute of it!

This has been discussed. The canon is weatherproofed and you can focus is manually while it is in auto focus. The other day I was doing some outdoor portraits and was sort of wishing I had a weatherproofed lens, as it rained on an off. But doesn't seem to be a problem.

What good is weather proof lens when you're shooting with the 20D or the XT? These cameras are not sealed anyways.

An $1100 price tag.

i am missing your point. what does the camera have to do with the lens being weatherproof?

ed rader

Probably that you'll have a nice/functioning lens but the body will have to go in for repairs.

might as well get water in your lens if it gets into the body. that makes sense to me .

ed rader

I don't use a 1-series camera, so weatherproof is not an issue to me. I'll not bring the lens to have a shower together too.:p

The ease of handling, focusing speed, and compatibility are my concerns. Apart from the clutch in the focusing ring, is there another switch at the base of the lens for AF/MF conversion? If yes, do I have to push two switches (clutch and switch at the base) to get MF? I can understand the focusing sound is louder in Sigma, but is it considerably slower to focus? Sigma should have added HSM on it. Sometimes I heard of Err 99 from users. Why does incompatibility occur?

Sigma's colour tone is towards a yellow (warmer?) tone. I can't say it's a fault because each lens has its own behaviour. Some people may like it while some don't.

You can shoot in RAW and then it's easy to alter.

Re. the 24-70's It depends on each user and what they need and what and how they shoot. Budget was an issue for me when I had one but I could have afforded an L if I'd wanted one. It didn't offer anything extra I personally needed. At the end of the day people buy what they want for their own reasons, but hopefully they at least consider what they need

Canon L's tend to have a nicer, saturated, richer colors, contrast but you can always add to it in photoshop.

The USM and weather proofing are about the only significant advantages as far as performance goes. But if you ain't making money off it, it's not really needed.

Well in some of my ghetto ways in unexpected rain, i had a smaller bag and just covered my body and left my 70-200 IS uncovered.

There you go, situation where you can use a lesser body and still take advantage of the lens.

If I'm out in mediocre weather, the camera's under my hat brim and encased in my hands while being used; under my coat while between shots. The lens, however, is poking out exposed at all times. So the lens is exposed to much more during normal bad-weather conditions than the body is. Sure, a weather-resistant body would be nice, but it's not essential in sloppy conditions. If it's at all wet, a weather-resistant lens is.

Hey just like me. I usually carry a market, plastic bag in my camera bag for those occasions. Although with a 200, you can pretty much cover the whole cam, but that weather proofing does come in handy. Ghetto fabulous!